While the prior art has taught some varied and diverse devices for performing capsulectomies or the like, some of including rotating blades or other cutting instruments for forming radial incisions, none are believed to teach or suggest the present invention.
A list of patents having some relevance to the present invention is provided below:
______________________________________ Patent Number Inventor Issue Date ______________________________________ 5862994 Yaacobi 01/19/1999 5848978 Cecchi 12/15/1998 5792166 Gordon et al 08/11/1998 5423841 Kornefeld 06/13/1995 5342377 Lazerson 08/30/1994 5261923 Soares 11/16/1993 4708138 Pazandak 11/24/1987 4911161 Schechter 03/27/1990 4570632 Lazerson 02/18/1986 4423728 Leiberman 01/03/1984 4180075 Marinoff 12/25/1979 1124552 Suggs 01/12/1915 1043408 De Vilbis 11/05/1912 873100 Skalstad 12/10/1907 ______________________________________
U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,860,994 (FIGS. 2, 5, & 6) and 5,261,923 teach devices for capsulectomies or the like which include a cutting blade situated at the end of a rotor or the like to provide a circular incision, although the drive means and actual cutting means is distinguishable from the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,708,138 teaches a "Rotating Surgical Cutting Knife" which is manually guided to provide a radial incision. U.S. Pat. No. 4,180,075 teaches another manually guided scalpel designed to manually facilitate a radial incision.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,423,728 teaches a rather complex mechanism in the form of a "Cam Guided Trephine" which appears to provide an annular cut, albeit different from that contemplated in the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,911,161 teaches a transducer driven cutting needle configured to provide an incision for a capsulectomy or the like. U.S. Pat. No. 4,750,632 teaches another device configured to provide a "continuous series of perforations".
While the above prior art systems provide radial cuts, the devices still are believed to require the operator to provide the incision to the appropriate depth, which is generally around 0.5 millimeters. Too shallow, and the incision is not enough; too deep, and the eye may be permanently damaged.
Further, one may argue that the smooth cut of a radial blade or the like which spins a sharp radial edge does not provide as good of an incision for healing as a more rough-edged incision. The inventor is unaware of any prior art which would accomplish the radial cut of the prior art, with automatic depth control, while providing a rough-edged incision for facilitating better healing.